Plenty of "Good Guys with Guns" But 6 Injured Anyway

[Little-Acorn]

Most people seem to be missing the most important reason why all law-abiding citizens should be able to carry a gun wherever they want.

If concealed carry by responsible adults is allowed, most still won't bother to carry. But a few will. And a whacko who wants to mow down a bunch of kids in a school, or a bunch of people in a shopping mall, will know there's a pretty good chance he'll get stopped very quickly if he pulls out his weapon and starts shooting... and he won't know where the bullet will come from, so he can't take out that person in advance. And so, he'll be less likely to even try it in the first place, knowing that he probably won't succeed.

Many of these whackos aren't afraid to die. Many of them kill themselves when the cops finally start closing in. But even those want to rack up a huge body count before they die, to generate lurid headlines for weeks after they're gone. And the chance that they'll get stopped within their first few shots, will make a difference even to the insane ones who want all the headlines.

That's the greatest advantage of concealed carry. Not just blowing away the criminal after he fires the first few shots. But in stopping him from even trying in the first place. Even though he knows that most people where he's committing his crime still don't have guns, he knows that one or two might... and he won't know which one(s). A far different situation from what these shooters face today at our schools, shopping malls, and other so-called "gun-free zones".

 

[WinterBorn]

Personally, I agree with the need for safe storage requirements. I have a gun safe and a pistol safe. Unless my guns are being transported or used, they are always locked away. I started the practice when I had small children around. I continue it now out of habit and to protect my investment.

I too agree with the need for safe storage. When I leave the house, the firearms go into the safe. I suffered a burglary once. They did NOT get into the safe and therefore no firearms were taken.

However, imposing such a requirement by government brings on all kinds of issues, such as restricting the rights of poor people who may not be able to afford a safe.

There is a need for it, however the people who want to pass laws that start with this do just that, they are only STARTING with it. They add requirements like having the gun unloaded, requiring the gun to be in the safe AT ALL TIMES. Then they will get into the number of guns you can have, and the usual downward slope begins.

I do not disagree with this. Which is why the gun owners need to be the ones pressing for safe storage.

 

[WinterBorn]

Another complaint I hear from those who dislike the idea of a gun safe is that they cannot get to the gun in an emergency.

My g/f keeps her revolver in her nightstand. I keep my lock box on the bottom shelf of my nightstand. I sleep on the side of the bed towards the door. Late one night we were awakened by the sound of a huge crash and the dog going crazy. We both reacted by grabbing our gun and heading to the bedroom door. I got there first. So my lock box id not slow me down enough to matter. And it cost me just under $200 (3 or 4 years ago).

Luckily it turned out that a big tree limb had fallen against the house, but when the noise wakes you up you have more trouble identifying it.

and i think when you are in your house you have it accessible. the point of the safe is when you leave the premise

Most of the time, at home, my pistol is in the lock box. It is habit. But since it has a biometric lock, I can have my gun in my hand in very little time. I store it loaded, locked & cocked and ready.

There is, however, another gun hidden in the living space of the house.

 

[Star]

.
Your ignorance is exposed here. In fact, those that carry demonstrate EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE kind of attitude. We go out of our way to avoid confrontation. We mind our own damn business. We NEVER reach for a firearm unless our lives are in danager.

You're speaking for all gun owners here?



Hell yes! Every hear of a lunatic shooting up a gun store business where everyone is armed? Didn't think so...

hmm!

EXCLUSIVE: 51 Upcoming Gun Shows Ban Loaded Weapons To Promote 'A Safe Environment'


By Scott Keyes
January 11, 2013

<snip>

For every event, their stated rationale for not permitting loaded weapons in the gun show was simple: safety. Crossroads Gun Show, a touring event across the western United States, explained on their website:

Q: Can I carry a loaded gun in the gun show? I have a Concealed Carry Permit.
A: We respectfully request that you do not bring any loaded firearm into the gun show. Safety is our Number One Priority, and a safe environment in the show can only be maintained if there are no loaded guns in the show.
​

At most shows, if an attendee brings a personal firearm, he or she must check it at the door and use a tie “so that they cannot be operated, be breached or loaded.”

<snip>
.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Lol, he chose the one part of that town where GUNS WERE BANNED LOLOLOLOLOLOL

You find this story... funny?

Why am I not surprised.

I find it funny that the Progressive bed-wetting nail-biter used this to attack Open Carry regions.

And you knew that...

You libtards just imploded every argument in favor of Gun Free Zones.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Guns everywhere is not going to solve the problem of crazies with guns. Sorry.

Once again, you're making shit up. No one is advocating "guns everywhere". No one is saying the absence of gun free zones will "solve the problem of crazies with guns".

Lying and making shit up is not helping you case.

What we are saying is that an individual ought not to be prevented from effectively defending himself, which is what gun free zones do. I really don't give a shit if you choose to allow yourself to be gunned down by the crazy. It's not like that would be a blow to the gene pool. What I do care about is the you seem to think you know what's best for everyone else. Guess what? You really don't.

Sorry.

You have some examples of people defending themselves in mass shooting?

The problem is that is someone stops a "mass shooting" the shooter doesn't kill enough people to actually make it a "mass" shooting.

See the Oregon mall Shooter.

The punk only shot two people before a regular/private citizen drew their sidearm and pinned him down. The pussy punk then decided to shoot himself. The jig was up, and he never got his 15 minutes of infamy.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/11/us/oregon-mall-shooting/

Notice how CNN completely OMITS that a man named Nick Meli drew his sidearm and pinned him down.

 

[Star]

Once again, you're making shit up. No one is advocating "guns everywhere". No one is saying the absence of gun free zones will "solve the problem of crazies with guns".

Lying and making shit up is not helping you case.

What we are saying is that an individual ought not to be prevented from effectively defending himself, which is what gun free zones do. I really don't give a shit if you choose to allow yourself to be gunned down by the crazy. It's not like that would be a blow to the gene pool. What I do care about is the you seem to think you know what's best for everyone else. Guess what? You really don't.

Sorry.

You have some examples of people defending themselves in mass shooting?

The problem is that is someone stops a "mass shooting" the shooter doesn't kill enough people to actually make it a "mass" shooting.

See the Oregon mall Shooter.

The punk only shot two people before a regular/private citizen drew their sidearm and pinned him down. The pussy punk then decided to shoot himself. The jig was up, and he never got his 15 minutes of infamy.

Clackamas mall shooter faced man with concealed weapon | kgw.com Portland

3 dead in Oregon mall shooting - CNN.com

Notice how CNN completely OMITS that a man named Nick Meli drew his sidearm and pinned him down.

Pinned down?
I don't get what you're trying to say, are you making a case for limiting the size of magazines?

Your link (did you read it?) to KGW contains this quote:
"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, ​

but he never took his eyes off the shooter.​

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.​

.

 

[eflatminor]

.
Your ignorance is exposed here. In fact, those that carry demonstrate EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE kind of attitude. We go out of our way to avoid confrontation. We mind our own damn business. We NEVER reach for a firearm unless our lives are in danager.

You're speaking for all gun owners here?

You speaking for all leftist idiots here?

Hell yes! Every hear of a lunatic shooting up a gun store business where everyone is armed? Didn't think so...

hmm!

EXCLUSIVE: 51 Upcoming Gun Shows Ban Loaded Weapons To Promote 'A Safe Environment'


By Scott Keyes
January 11, 2013

<snip>

For every event, their stated rationale for not permitting loaded weapons in the gun show was simple: safety. Crossroads Gun Show, a touring event across the western United States, explained on their website:

Q: Can I carry a loaded gun in the gun show? I have a Concealed Carry Permit.
A: We respectfully request that you do not bring any loaded firearm into the gun show. Safety is our Number One Priority, and a safe environment in the show can only be maintained if there are no loaded guns in the show.
​

At most shows, if an attendee brings a personal firearm, he or she must check it at the door and use a tie “so that they cannot be operated, be breached or loaded.”

<snip>
.[/COLOR

A gun show is not a firearm store where everyone is armed, is it genius? Go into a gun store. Every employee will be packing and I assure you, there's one under the proverbial counter. Every hear of a mass shooting at a gun store? Again, didn't think so.

Further, gun shows are held in public facilities that are gun free zones regardless of who is occupying the facility. Given that firearms are going to passed back and forth between people at a gun show, it only makes sense to ensure they're not loaded. That passing back and forth of firearms doesn't happen at a place of work.

Duh.

My goodness, are you really this stupid or are you being a disingenuous fuck on purpose?

Given your history around here, I'm going with both.

 

[eflatminor]

The ideas would not completely remove all potential death in the event a determined, and suicidal, person decides to kill people. The best step would be to work on better prevention, as in work place mediation for problems ect.

And since there is virtually no way to guarantee 100% safety, the best ideas are those that limit the loss of life.

Considering how easy it is to make a bomb or lethal gas, there pretty much can be no guarantee of safety. Clorox and Windex can be combined to make chlorine gas. That has the potential to kill more people than died in the shooting in Kennesaw.

I agree with you. This is why I believe in magazine cap limits. These shooters are often stopped at reload.

And what exactly makes you think these "shooters" will obey your magazine limit law?

You realize they're nothing but sheet metal and a spring, right? You realize there are MILLIONS of high capacity magazines already in existence, right?

What EXACTLY do you hope to accomplish by limiting magazine size other than to put law abiding citizens at a tactical disadvantage against the thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about your rules???

I find it telling that none of the gun grabbers every attempt to honestly answer these kind of questions.

Logical fallacy in 3...2...

 

[Pogo]

Lol, he chose the one part of that town where GUNS WERE BANNED LOLOLOLOLOLOL

You find this story... funny?

Why am I not surprised.

I find it funny that the Progressive bed-wetting nail-biter used this to attack Open Carry regions.

And you knew that...

You libtards just imploded every argument in favor of Gun Free Zones.

There is no issue of "gun free zones". You and your ilk made that up. It's a comic book fantasy myth, supported by absolutely nothing but wishful thinking, and already disproven as a fallacy by case histories (after which I notice the thread veered away nervously into tangents of calibers and other irrelevant bullshit). It's a red herring y'all like to bring in as a deflection. Didn't work then, doesn't work now.

Oh and I should add, won't work tomorrow either.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You find this story... funny?

Why am I not surprised.

I find it funny that the Progressive bed-wetting nail-biter used this to attack Open Carry regions.

And you knew that...

You libtards just imploded every argument in favor of Gun Free Zones.

There is no issue of "gun free zones". You and your ilk made that up. It's a comic book fantasy myth, supported by absolutely nothing but wishful thinking, and already disproven as a fallacy by case histories (after which I notice the thread veered away nervously into tangents of calibers and other irrelevant bullshit). It's a red herring y'all like to bring in as a deflection. Didn't work then, doesn't work now.

Oh and I should add, won't work tomorrow either.

Wait hold on, I got it:

 

[Nosmo King]

Since the gun lovers offer no solutions to gun violence other than add more guns to the mix, can we assume then that they have given up on finding a solution to gun violence and decided to move on?

Perhaps we should adopt their attitude toward the war on drugs. There are many similarities. There are too many drugs on our streets now. No effective solution like banning them can be applied. The drugs themselves are merely tools, not harmful unless someone abuses them. Only the criminal element abuses drugs so denying them to law abiding citizens is patently wrong. Drug free zones are not effective in stemming the tide against illegal drugs so they should be abolished as well.

So let's flood our streets with heroin, cocaine, xtasy and crystal meth because we are not imaginative enough to stop gun violence and we lack the imagination to stop the traffic in illegal drugs.

 

[WinterBorn]

Since the gun lovers offer no solutions to gun violence other than add more guns to the mix, can we assume then that they have given up on finding a solution to gun violence and decided to move on?

Perhaps we should adopt their attitude toward the war on drugs. There are many similarities. There are too many drugs on our streets now. No effective solution like banning them can be applied. The drugs themselves are merely tools, not harmful unless someone abuses them. Only the criminal element abuses drugs so denying them to law abiding citizens is patently wrong. Drug free zones are not effective in stemming the tide against illegal drugs so they should be abolished as well.

So let's flood our streets with heroin, cocaine, xtasy and crystal meth because we are not imaginative enough to stop gun violence and we lack the imagination to stop the traffic in illegal drugs.

Gun owners have not given up. We simply do not accept being punished for what we did not do. We do not accept that the 63 million gun owners be held responsible for what less than 10,000 criminals do with guns that may or may not have been gotten illegally.

One of the other gun threads was about banning the so called "assault weapons". That has been a great attention getter for those who dislike guns, even though it is a tiny portion of the guns actually used in murders.

What, pray tell, would your answer to gun violence be?

 

[Nosmo King]

Since the gun lovers offer no solutions to gun violence other than add more guns to the mix, can we assume then that they have given up on finding a solution to gun violence and decided to move on?

Perhaps we should adopt their attitude toward the war on drugs. There are many similarities. There are too many drugs on our streets now. No effective solution like banning them can be applied. The drugs themselves are merely tools, not harmful unless someone abuses them. Only the criminal element abuses drugs so denying them to law abiding citizens is patently wrong. Drug free zones are not effective in stemming the tide against illegal drugs so they should be abolished as well.

So let's flood our streets with heroin, cocaine, xtasy and crystal meth because we are not imaginative enough to stop gun violence and we lack the imagination to stop the traffic in illegal drugs.

Gun owners have not given up. We simply do not accept being punished for what we did not do. We do not accept that the 63 million gun owners be held responsible for what less than 10,000 criminals do with guns that may or may not have been gotten illegally.

One of the other gun threads was about banning the so called "assault weapons". That has been a great attention getter for those who dislike guns, even though it is a tiny portion of the guns actually used in murders.

What, pray tell, would your answer to gun violence be?

First and foremost: universal back ground checks. If indeed it's the irresponsible or irrational user of the gun that presents the problem, we should take all means necessary to prevent them from getting a gun in their hands. Universal back ground checks are popular, bipartisan, and a good first step.

Secondly, a ban on high capacity magazines. If indeed guns are used for self defense, ten rounds should be sufficient. Once you arm yourself with the means to discharge more than ten rounds, you have gone from a defensive weapon to an offensive weapon. No sportsman should need more than ten rounds to drop his game, no home owner needs more than ten round to deter a criminal. Who needs more than ten rounds? Gangbangers not known for thei marksmanship and lunatics wishing to kill as many innocent victims as possible in a theater or school.

 

[WinterBorn]

Since the gun lovers offer no solutions to gun violence other than add more guns to the mix, can we assume then that they have given up on finding a solution to gun violence and decided to move on?

Perhaps we should adopt their attitude toward the war on drugs. There are many similarities. There are too many drugs on our streets now. No effective solution like banning them can be applied. The drugs themselves are merely tools, not harmful unless someone abuses them. Only the criminal element abuses drugs so denying them to law abiding citizens is patently wrong. Drug free zones are not effective in stemming the tide against illegal drugs so they should be abolished as well.

So let's flood our streets with heroin, cocaine, xtasy and crystal meth because we are not imaginative enough to stop gun violence and we lack the imagination to stop the traffic in illegal drugs.

Gun owners have not given up. We simply do not accept being punished for what we did not do. We do not accept that the 63 million gun owners be held responsible for what less than 10,000 criminals do with guns that may or may not have been gotten illegally.

One of the other gun threads was about banning the so called "assault weapons". That has been a great attention getter for those who dislike guns, even though it is a tiny portion of the guns actually used in murders.

What, pray tell, would your answer to gun violence be?

First and foremost: universal back ground checks. If indeed it's the irresponsible or irrational user of the gun that presents the problem, we should take all means necessary to prevent them from getting a gun in their hands. Universal back ground checks are popular, bipartisan, and a good first step.

Secondly, a ban on high capacity magazines. If indeed guns are used for self defense, ten rounds should be sufficient. Once you arm yourself with the means to discharge more than ten rounds, you have gone from a defensive weapon to an offensive weapon. No sportsman should Ned more than ten rounds to drop his game, no home owner needs more than ten round to deter a criminal. Who needs more than ten rounds? Gangbangers not known for thei marksmanship and lunatics wishing to kill as many innocent victims in a theater or school.

If you would care to propose a method by which ordinary gun owners have a way to do background checks, I am not opposed. It is, however, nonsense to think that will prevent gun violence.

from:Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Firearm Use by Offenders

"A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends."

from:FBI ? 2008 Operations Report

"In the 10-year period from November 30, 1998 to December 31, 2008, about 96 million background checks for gun purchases were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, approximately 681,000 or about 1% were denied."

from:Evaluation and Inspection Report

"According to federal agents interviewed in a 2004 U.S. Justice Department investigation, the "vast majority" of denials under the federal background check system are issued to people who are not "a danger to the public because the prohibiting factors are often minor or based on incidents that occurred many years in the past." As examples of such, agents stated that denials have been issued due to a 1941 felony conviction for stealing a pig and a 1969 felony conviction for stealing hubcaps."


So it is pretty clear that additional background checks would not do much to reduce gun related crime. It is even clearer that the holy grail of issues, the Gun Show myth, is not the huge danger that some claim it to be.



As for high capacity magazines, I find it amusing that you think you know how many rounds it takes to defend a home or someone's family. The truth is, the high capacity magazine is not particularly dangerous. The only semi-auto I have that is suitable for self-defense has a magazine capacity of 8 rounds (7 in the standard mag). I can reload in less than 2 seconds. So unless you are in a position to grab and disarm me in less than 2 seconds, it makes no difference whatsoever. You pretty much have to be within arms reach of the shooter and be counting the number of shots fired (and know how many the particular gun holds). I would be willing to bet that if you were crouched down 15 feet away from me, I could reload a double action revolver before you could reach me. That someone cannot reload a semi-auto faster is due to their own lack of ability, much like the fact that they fired 19 rounds and hit 6 people.

 

[WinterBorn]

A much better answer would be to keep violent felons locked behind bars.

from:Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010

"Among state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005&#8212;

About two-thirds (67.8%) of released prisoners were arrested for a new crime within 3 years, and three-quarters (76.6%) were arrested within 5 years.
Within 5 years of release, 82.1% of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 76.9% of drug offenders, 73.6% of public order offenders, and 71.3% of violent offenders.
More than a third (36.8%) of all prisoners who were arrested within 5 years of release were arrested within the first 6 months after release, with more than half (56.7%) arrested by the end of the first year.
Two in five (42.3%) released prisoners were either not arrested or arrested once in the 5 years after their release.
A sixth (16.1%) of released prisoners were responsible for almost half (48.4%) of the nearly 1.2 million arrests that occurred in the 5-year follow-up period.
An estimated 10.9% of released prisoners were arrested in a state other than the one that released them during the 5-year follow-up period
Within 5 years of release, 84.1% of inmates who were age 24 or younger at release were arrested, compared to 78.6% of inmates ages 25 to 39 and 69.2% of those age 40 or older."

 

[jc456]

Have you ever noticed how in the armed fantasy land, surprise never works. No employee carrying a gun would be shocked if someone came in that they had no reason to fear and started shooting people.

Surprise works for every other violent situation I know of. Ambushes are all about surprise.

But not in fantasy gun land. When that shooter walks in and pulls his gun, no one would freeze, no fear for YOUR life would kick in, no surprise at all. They would all immediately pull their weapons and with laser accuracy and large caliber weapons.............. start shooting at each other.

Jeez, you really are stretching the bounds of reality.

No one says that armed good guys would stop all murders. But what would very likely happen is that there would be fewer injured and fewer dead.

Do you think this would be news if one guy shot another guy, then got shot?

So what are you all saying? And what are you basing your idea that there would be less injured or killed. Are you just "guessing" because your "guess" supports your desire for everyone that wants to be armed to be armed.

This shooter killed himself, again. After shooting whoever he intended to shoot. You shoot a lot, how long you think it took for this entire scene to happen? 30 seconds? A minute?
What would you have done to change the outcome?
"

You have no idea what would happen. come on now admit it. It happens on US military bases where they have many many guns and tanks and rifles, machine guns and you know what? Soldiers die. So, the whole premise is idiotic.

 

[WinterBorn]

Have you ever noticed how in the armed fantasy land, surprise never works. No employee carrying a gun would be shocked if someone came in that they had no reason to fear and started shooting people.

Surprise works for every other violent situation I know of. Ambushes are all about surprise.

But not in fantasy gun land. When that shooter walks in and pulls his gun, no one would freeze, no fear for YOUR life would kick in, no surprise at all. They would all immediately pull their weapons and with laser accuracy and large caliber weapons.............. start shooting at each other.

Jeez, you really are stretching the bounds of reality.

No one says that armed good guys would stop all murders. But what would very likely happen is that there would be fewer injured and fewer dead.

Do you think this would be news if one guy shot another guy, then got shot?

So what are you all saying? And what are you basing your idea that there would be less injured or killed. Are you just "guessing" because your "guess" supports your desire for everyone that wants to be armed to be armed.

This shooter killed himself, again. After shooting whoever he intended to shoot. You shoot a lot, how long you think it took for this entire scene to happen? 30 seconds? A minute?
What would you have done to change the outcome?
"

That's funny, the mantra of "Ban High Capacity Magazines!" would not stop the shootings either. The absolute best you could hope for is a reduced body count. Which is exactly what having armed good guys would do. It would just have the potential to reduce the body count to the absolute minimum.

 

[zeke]

.
Your ignorance is exposed here. In fact, those that carry demonstrate EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE kind of attitude. We go out of our way to avoid confrontation. We mind our own damn business. We NEVER reach for a firearm unless our lives are in danager.

You're speaking for all gun owners here?

You speaking for all leftist idiots here?

Hell yes! Every hear of a lunatic shooting up a gun store business where everyone is armed? Didn't think so...

hmm!

EXCLUSIVE: 51 Upcoming Gun Shows Ban Loaded Weapons To Promote 'A Safe Environment'


By Scott Keyes
January 11, 2013

<snip>

For every event, their stated rationale for not permitting loaded weapons in the gun show was simple: safety. Crossroads Gun Show, a touring event across the western United States, explained on their website:

Q: Can I carry a loaded gun in the gun show? I have a Concealed Carry Permit.
A: We respectfully request that you do not bring any loaded firearm into the gun show. Safety is our Number One Priority, and a safe environment in the show can only be maintained if there are no loaded guns in the show.
​

At most shows, if an attendee brings a personal firearm, he or she must check it at the door and use a tie “so that they cannot be operated, be breached or loaded.”

<snip>
.[/COLOR

A gun show is not a firearm store where everyone is armed, is it genius? Go into a gun store. Every employee will be packing and I assure you, there's one under the proverbial counter. Every hear of a mass shooting at a gun store? Again, didn't think so.

Further, gun shows are held in public facilities that are gun free zones regardless of who is occupying the facility. Given that firearms are going to passed back and forth between people at a gun show, it only makes sense to ensure they're not loaded. That passing back and forth of firearms doesn't happen at a place of work.

Duh.

My goodness, are you really this stupid or are you being a disingenuous fuck on purpose?

Given your history around here, I'm going with both.

Hey asshole. Are you being a disingenuous fuck on purpose.

If I want to go into a gun show and carry my gun on my hip, why in the fuck shouldn't I be able to. I am not there to sell that weapon. I am not going to pull that weapon unless I need to shoot someone. So why can't I carry my personal weapon in a gun show.

And it ain't because of your bullshit reason of given that firearms are going to be passed back and forth. You stupid fuck. The sellers of weapons have to make sure their weapons are unloaded. This is about people carrying their personal weapons into a gun show and the gun show organizers won't allow it. Now why the fuck not. What does a gun show operator fear from all the gun nuts attending the show?

 

[Nosmo King]

Gun owners have not given up. We simply do not accept being punished for what we did not do. We do not accept that the 63 million gun owners be held responsible for what less than 10,000 criminals do with guns that may or may not have been gotten illegally.

One of the other gun threads was about banning the so called "assault weapons". That has been a great attention getter for those who dislike guns, even though it is a tiny portion of the guns actually used in murders.

What, pray tell, would your answer to gun violence be?

First and foremost: universal back ground checks. If indeed it's the irresponsible or irrational user of the gun that presents the problem, we should take all means necessary to prevent them from getting a gun in their hands. Universal back ground checks are popular, bipartisan, and a good first step.

Secondly, a ban on high capacity magazines. If indeed guns are used for self defense, ten rounds should be sufficient. Once you arm yourself with the means to discharge more than ten rounds, you have gone from a defensive weapon to an offensive weapon. No sportsman should Ned more than ten rounds to drop his game, no home owner needs more than ten round to deter a criminal. Who needs more than ten rounds? Gangbangers not known for thei marksmanship and lunatics wishing to kill as many innocent victims in a theater or school.

If you would care to propose a method by which ordinary gun owners have a way to do background checks, I am not opposed. It is, however, nonsense to think that will prevent gun violence.

from:Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Firearm Use by Offenders

"A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends."

from:FBI ? 2008 Operations Report

"In the 10-year period from November 30, 1998 to December 31, 2008, about 96 million background checks for gun purchases were processed through the federal background check system. Of these, approximately 681,000 or about 1% were denied."

from:Evaluation and Inspection Report

"According to federal agents interviewed in a 2004 U.S. Justice Department investigation, the "vast majority" of denials under the federal background check system are issued to people who are not "a danger to the public because the prohibiting factors are often minor or based on incidents that occurred many years in the past." As examples of such, agents stated that denials have been issued due to a 1941 felony conviction for stealing a pig and a 1969 felony conviction for stealing hubcaps."


So it is pretty clear that additional background checks would not do much to reduce gun related crime. It is even clearer that the holy grail of issues, the Gun Show myth, is not the huge danger that some claim it to be.



As for high capacity magazines, I find it amusing that you think you know how many rounds it takes to defend a home or someone's family. The truth is, the high capacity magazine is not particularly dangerous. The only semi-auto I have that is suitable for self-defense has a magazine capacity of 8 rounds (7 in the standard mag). I can reload in less than 2 seconds. So unless you are in a position to grab and disarm me in less than 2 seconds, it makes no difference whatsoever. You pretty much have to be within arms reach of the shooter and be counting the number of shots fired (and know how many the particular gun holds). I would be willing to bet that if you were crouched down 15 feet away from me, I could reload a double action revolver before you could reach me. That someone cannot reload a semi-auto faster is due to their own lack of ability, much like the fact that they fired 19 rounds and hit 6 people.

So then let's surrender! Let's accept the corpses of children in schools, the bodies of innocents in theaters and the lost lives of those unfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire during a drive by shooting. The price seems high, but as any and all efforts to reduce gun violence are to stupefying to be acceptable, our lot is to be shot at to defend the shooter's 2nd amendment rights. Public safety be damned. Solutions are not workable under any circumstances. What a wonderful world we are entering! Rambo wannabes and those who cannot fathom a solution. The idiots now rule!